investments_transactions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It fails to mention even basic traits such as whether the tool returns a list, how results are ordered, whether partial date ranges matter, or if there are any limits. The phrase 'in a window' only hints at a date range, but no further behavior is described.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence, which is technically concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The sentence wastes no words, yet it also fails to convey essential meaning, so it does not earn its place. It is too short to be useful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a description that provides almost no context. For a tool that likely returns investment transactions, the description lacks critical details like the nature of the activity, the response format, pagination, or any distinctions from sibling tools. It is completely inadequate for an agent to understand or use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%—both 'start' and 'end' are documented with their defaults and inclusivity. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already specifies date types and defaults. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Investment activity in a window' is vague and does not clearly state what the tool does. While the name implies transactions, the description uses the ambiguous noun 'activity' without specifying that it lists transactions or what form the output takes. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like investments_balances, investments_holdings, or investments_summary, so an agent cannot tell what this tool uniquely provides.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description offers no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. Given the many investment-related sibling tools, the absence of any routing information makes it impossible for an agent to choose this tool correctly based on context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.